Talk:Archidermapteron martynovi

Creation

This article was moved from previous content that was in my userspace. See User:The Earwig/Articles/Archive 1. It is part of a series of stub articles about earwigs that I am writing. The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 03:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Expansion

I am currently expanding have expanded this article to include a lot more information on the species appearence and phylogenetic relationships. I might be able to make this article a "did you know", so I wanted to expand it at once so that it satisfies the fivefold inclusion rule. Any help on the article is appreciated; I will be able to incorporate it into the final version if possible. You can view the in-progress article here. Although the major edit for the article has been completed, feel free to add more information to this article. I have tried to squeeze everything I could out of the internet, but if anyone has offline sources that have information about Archidermapteron martynovi, then that would be great! The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 18:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 13:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Archidermapteron martynovi/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I feel the article appropriately satisfies the B-class criteria. The article contains thirteen references, all properly cited, and has inline citations for each. I have done my best to include everything that could be included about the subject. I do not know of what else could be included. As mentioned in the discovery section, "little is known about how the species was discovered due to the ambiguity of the reports about it." Therefore, we cannot add much more to it unless someone has offline references that we can use. We have a good lead section providing a general understanding of the subject, and an individual section for each subtopic. I do not see any noticeable grammatical errors. We have a taxobox and a diagram that I uploaded showing Willmann's theory. However, the article is indeed missing an image. I link to a drawing of the fossil multiple times, but I can't put that in the actual article for copyright reasons. I think that while the article uses some slightly confusing terminology in the phylogenetics section, it is well explained. All of the other sections do not use any confusing terminology. This grading system is based on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team's B-class criteria page here. The article's biggest problems are the absence of an image and the fact that it is short, but there isn't much else to say, is there? The Earwig (User | Talk | Contributions) 14:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 01:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)